The Chernobyl nuclear disaster: 26 years ago today

Today is the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl. It is a disaster that left a 30-kilometre uninhabitable exclusion zone, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and still threatens the lives of tens of thousands.

It’s 26 years later and what have the nuclear industry and its supporters learned?

Nothing.

The nuclear industry still hasn't realized or admitted that its reactors are unsafe. Reactors are vulnerable to any unforeseen combination of technological failures, human errors and natural disasters. That puts the tens of millions of people living near the worlds more than 400 reactors at risk.

(A map comparing fallout from reactor accidents in Chernobyl and in Fukushima. Significant radiation contamination from both will last for centuries.)

Nuclear power still has not found a way to finance itself without begging for subsidies from taxpayers. This is an industry that has been living off blank cheques from governments for the last 60 years. Private backers just aren’t interested. Nuclear is a “corporate killer” and a “dream that failed”.

There are countries, however, that are leading the way from nuclear to a renewable future. Germany, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland are all turning away from nuclear power. Just one of 54 reactors is operating in Japan now with the impact on people invisible. Japan is also showing right now that nuclear power isn’t needed.

@zamm thank you for your comment, point taken for car engine efficiency. However it must be noted that for some engines the high efficiency area is sm...

@zamm thank you for your comment, point taken for car engine efficiency. However it must be noted that for some engines the high efficiency area is smaller and/or low efficiency values are further away from the best values. In fact, the more efficient "small" cars (e.g. Honda Fit) are competitive with hybrid cars (e.g. Toyota Prius): I travel 10,000 km/yr and gas is at 150 yen/lt now, so it would take me 25 years to break even on a purchase price difference of about 900,000 yen (based on actual mileage data, not catalog).

They also say that they are studying air conditioners that provide cooling by using hot water; I guees those would be based on absorption. (Cooling systems based on absorption are already commercially available for larger installations)

Electric cars may be useful to help store excess electricity but, for starters, at the moment no plug-in model is commonly available in Japan. It seems to me that a smart grid is the best solution to facilitate a gradual migration to local generation.

Tokyo Electric should be required to sell its distribution grid, as proposed by former prime minister Naoto Kan. The new company managing the grid would then be free to build a smart grid without being afraid of a decrease in its electricity sales. Furthermore, TEPCO would be able to use the proceeds of the sale of its grid to pay for the damages related to the Fukushima disaster without relying so much on taxpayer money.

Roddy said: in the two examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima we have a chance to see exactly how dangerous.

Thank you very much for viewin...

Roddy said: in the two examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima we have a chance to see exactly how dangerous.

Thank you very much for viewing myself and my kids like guinea pigs. If you want to see yourself how dangerous it is I can help shipping you and your family commercially available food from the Fukushima area.

Nuclear industry said severe accidents have a one in 100,000 years chance of occourring; we have already seen six of such accidents in 60 years. I do not want to see any more.

I am not interested in seeing how dangerous it is either: I want to see a 0.0 reading for cesium in all my food; I want to see all nuclear powerplants shut down for good and the people responsible for the Fukushima disaster to be held accountable on both a civil and criminal basis.

I want to see people investing in nuclear power to take up the whole financial risk of running such a business, without subsidies and without caps on damage liabilities. I want see the manufacturers of the plants also to be fully liable for damages alongside with the utilities running the plant and the security commissions in charge of checking that plants are safe.

At the moment I am not seeing anything of this, nor I am seeing proper screening of people and food: people in Japan is handled more casually than guinea pigs, at least experimental conditions are carefully controlled when working with pigs.

@Roddy - you are quite pessimistic about energy efficiency. I wonder why. It is not the technology - there is a lot of technology there, that from the...

@Roddy - you are quite pessimistic about energy efficiency. I wonder why. It is not the technology - there is a lot of technology there, that from the shelve can help us drive down primary energy need for prices that are even well below on-shore wind or hydro, let alone gas and nuclear... The crux of the question is how to get these implemented, not the availability of technique or cost. When I see the energy wastage here in Poland and the Czech Republic (the countries I live in), I cannot understand the complaints that "we are so poor"... People here (be it as individual or family end consumer or be it as industry) are thieves of their own purse...
As with other issues in the energy [r]evolution scenario, we have been conservative with energy efficiency, because it appears to be so difficult to implement. But the cost-advantages of what we have put in are so crass, that I firmly believe these numbers are quite realistic. But you are right: we lag behind now in comparison with the first scenarios we made. And that is of concern. Replacing that with nuclear? No thanks - replacing the madness of not being efficient with the madness of more large scale nuclear accidents, proliferation and the unsolvable radioactive waste problem does not seem to be to me a solid alternative. If we would be able to address even one of those issues, it still would be easier to implement the efficiency measures proposed - and cheaper - and faster (remember CO2 emissions need to peak in 2015!)
The energy [r]evolution scenario has taken electrification of most of transport as well as domestic heating (heat-pumps) into account.

No form of energy is really safe, every form of energy generation damages someone/something in the world. of the 400 reactors in the world, the only o...

No form of energy is really safe, every form of energy generation damages someone/something in the world. of the 400 reactors in the world, the only ones that have caused problems are due to error via humans, be it operational error or error in placement. LFTR is the way forward, but nuclear, while it has dangers is viable. profit in nuclear energy doesnt matter, having energy matters. there are people living near chernobyl with no ill health and have been living there for years

I may not know much, but have done quite extensive research on the area, to the limitations of information available in Canada about this subject. Wit...

I may not know much, but have done quite extensive research on the area, to the limitations of information available in Canada about this subject. With technology
and politics today I truly believe that re-taking the land
back as well as dealing with the fuel, and also producing
new forms of energy is possible. We also have a time platform for radiation exposure throughout, Chernobyl and Fukashima, as well as the after effects. Now is the time to get serious about energy and its fundamentals, past and future. I propose that some thing is put together, the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant, Chernobyl, Prypyet, and the surrounding area, should be used as pilot project. unless a serious approach is made this will get much worse in another 26 years. I am creating pilot project and
am in need of more info on lots of areas. Please contact.

Do people realize that Chernobyl was the result of political situation and not an engineering failure.

1 man, in the soviet union party, ...

Do people realize that Chernobyl was the result of political situation and not an engineering failure.

1 man, in the soviet union party, wanted to do an experiment with the reactors. Those who opposed it were threatened with termination if they did not comply. The chief engineer could have stopped it, the technicians could have stopped it but they didn't because of the unique culture of the soviet union where they could be sacked and jailed for opposing someone in authority. I hope people bear that in mind when considering nuclear safety. Chernobyl will never happen again.